If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Life finds a way: Worm evolves to eat corn genetically engineered to kill it   (wired.com) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, corn, ecological damage, genetic modifications, biotechnology company, Bacillus thuringiensis, insecticides, agricultural science, National Academy of Sciences  
•       •       •

7538 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2014 at 5:31 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-18 06:12:50 AM  
5 votes:
This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...
2014-03-18 03:57:57 AM  
5 votes:
We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.
2014-03-18 12:20:46 AM  
4 votes:
Also: creationists can suck it, too.
2014-03-18 08:57:15 AM  
3 votes:

Farkage: So you're telling me that corn genetically engineered to produce bt toxin is safer and healthier than corn that isn't?


Why, it is indeed.
You do realize that Bt is a natural pesticide, approved in organic farming? Bt bacteira is a very common soil bacteria, and you've probably inhaled/digested quite a bit on your lifetime.
The 'pesticide' part of the bacteria is a protein, and it is the gene from that bacteria that is transferred to the corn.

Oh, I should add this (quote from biofortified.org):
"
Ironically, crops expressing Bt have reduced toxin exposure all over the world. Corn expressing Bt has dramatically reduced incidence of fungal infection and of potentially deadly mycotoxins (toxins produced by fungus). Why? The Bt corn has fewer insect bite marks, which is how the fungus enters the kernels to colonize the ear. There are other ways to prevent fungus growth, but none are better than Bt, especially in tropical and sub-tropical areas such as southern Africa and Central America where maize aka corn is a staple. In addition, use of Bt has allowed farmers to use fewer broad spectrum insecticides, letting more non-pest insects live and reducing exposure to farmers and neighbors during pesticide application. Finally, because Bt protects corn from insect damage, Bt corn has higher yields so less land is needed to grow the same amount of food."

As for that fearmongering that OMG GENES ARE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER, whoa, settle down. This happens in nature all the time, and has been happening for millions of years. It's called lateral gene transfer. Usually via bacteria that are really good at inserting genes into their new host's genome. As a matter of fact, a popular technique used in biotech is harnessing those bacteria that naturally do these cross-species (up to even cross-kingdom) to do the oh-so-evil gene transfer.

So to sum up: Bt bacteria is natural and all over the place. Gene transfer is natural and has been going on since time immemorial, with or without man.
2014-03-18 08:49:59 AM  
3 votes:

MemeSlave: Another pop-sci evolution article.

The worm did not evolve to eat the corn, some of the worms stopped dying when they tried.  It's different.


It's almost as though the worms that were most fit to handle the change in their environment survived and reproduced while those that were less fit withered and died. Totally different.
2014-03-18 08:24:06 AM  
3 votes:
What I take away from the story is that farmers are greedy and thrifty; the proper management technique, alternating fields of Bt and non-Bt corn, would have reduced their profit per acre by some fraction, while adding some cost for buying more than one kind of seed, and perhaps having to buy and apply some conventional pesticides.  They're mostly cash-renters, not owners, on the land they farm, so they don't have the same tie to the land as a farmer that's had that property in the family for generations. They look at the field as just another kind of factory. And Monsanto lobbied the government to keep the refuge percentage guidelines low and unenforced. So, near-term profit overrides long-term common sense and care.

Yet again.
2014-03-18 06:21:42 AM  
3 votes:

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Protest scientific progress despite lack of scientific knowledge because reasons.
2014-03-18 05:52:22 AM  
3 votes:

namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl


I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.
2014-03-18 12:51:14 AM  
3 votes:
Why do I get the feeling this is only going to lead to larger agricultural subsidies?
2014-03-18 12:11:08 PM  
2 votes:

khyberkitsune: 50 years of USDA study says you're wrong, and our food nutritional content is actually dropping.


Is that true?  Wow, that's news to me.  I mean, the very first GMO created with the goal of improving nutrition was golden rice, published in 2000.  Here it is - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10634784

What evidence do you have that nutrition declined after that?

khyberkitsune: Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999


Oh my dear lord, what a stupid study to cite if you're attempting to rebut the claim that GMOs improve nutrition.  You're comparing years before nutritionally improved GMOs even existed.  That's okay though, you don't have any reason to know any better.

khyberkitsune: But hey, I just happen to do this kind of stuff for a living, what do you do?


Oh my dear lord.  Don't show your employer this thread.
2014-03-18 07:44:55 AM  
2 votes:

Cataholic: Nothing brings out the luddites quite like a GMO thread.


And nothing stops GMO shills from throwing around the word "luddite" instead of refuting claims with links.

It's almost like they have nothing but ad hominem attacks...
2014-03-18 06:31:16 AM  
2 votes:

Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,


Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.


1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been tested to establish that it's healthy/safe.  Non-GM food has not.  You're actually taking  moreof a health risk eating non-GM food.

As for things adapting to our farming techniques... you do realize that pests have been adapting rapidly to our farming techniques for between 12000 and 14000 years, depending how long your region of the world has had agriculture, right?  Historically, we haven't found staying ahead terribly insurmountable as problems go.  If you really think it's a "GM" problem, for christ's sake go take some sort of remedial GED biology class or something.
2014-03-18 06:28:42 AM  
2 votes:

Mid_mo_mad_man: demaL-demaL-yeH: namatad: obivous tag was broken?
rofl

I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

Only ogranic farming would would leave massive famine. With modern hybrids and chemical fertilizer a 1/3 of the world would starve.


Those chemical fertilizers are made from petroleum. That "third of the world" is going to starve eventually anyway, when that petroleum runs out. It would actually be more like 2/3 of the world, and we would still have these GMO foodstuffs in the system. It is unsustainable, and only benefits the people who own the patents. There is no measurable long-term benefit from growing crops that require petroleum-derived chemicals to survive.
2014-03-18 06:25:04 AM  
2 votes:

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...


Well, to be fair, the article does outline the ways in which this could have been prevented. The true problem with GMOs is that while they could be used wisely, the odds of them actually being used wisely and with proper regulatory enforcement are about as slim as a unicorn spontaneously jumping out my butt this very second. And if they aren't used the way that is safest and suggested by scientists, it could fark a whole bunch of things up down the road. It's not that they have to be bad, it's that we know from experience with just about every other thing that could fark us up if we don't regulate it, we won't to the most ideal degree, and whatever the crappy result of failure to do so is, we'll be experiencing it to one degree or another soon enough. So I can understand why some people feel with GMOs it's going to be an everything goes or nothing does situation and banning them is the only way to stop this.
2014-03-18 06:12:12 AM  
2 votes:
And thus surprising no ecologist, ever.
2014-03-18 05:57:22 AM  
2 votes:

Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.


Read: The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. The story takes place after several generations of that.

All the super rich have done is earn themselves to be the last to starve when things go to shiat. They cause the problems, then blame the people affected by those problems for suffering the effects the problems they created. They would happily murder 2/3 of the human race rather than admit they're farking the world up.
2014-03-18 05:56:05 AM  
2 votes:

Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?


Heh. I can just picture the little tiny Fremen army riding the little tiny worms on the final assault of the Bt mother root ball.

Eventually we'll learn that we can't just "there, I fixed it" once and expect life to throw up its hands and say "Woah, I'm out".
2014-03-18 12:20:07 AM  
2 votes:
Ha! Suck it, Syngenta!
2014-03-18 12:07:05 AM  
2 votes:
obivous tag was broken?
rofl
2014-03-18 02:18:09 PM  
1 votes:

khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.


That's not a study.  That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce.  Read your "Please Note" section at the bottom of it.  I don't think you understand, I jokingly suggested you were trolling.  The reason I jokingly suggested that was because the alternative is you actually believe the things you post.

khyberkitsune: many peer-reviewed journals are biased as hell.
Only twenty or so non-biased and capable-of-testing journals exist.


khyberkitsune: Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess those "biased as hell" journals didn't publish your results because you didn't do statistical analysis on them.  But you don't need statistics, that's a "soft science" amirite?
2014-03-18 01:10:58 PM  
1 votes:

khyberkitsune: lennavan: What evidence do you have that nutrition declined after that?

Oh, plenty.

  But you're right, the evidence I posted previously had fark all to do with GMO nutrition because you were right, it only went up to 1999 and GMOs intended to improve nutrition were not created until 2000Do you mind if I replace that evidence with new evidence and pretend it never happened?

Hey, I won't tell anyone.  I doubt anyone will notice.

khyberkitsune: Perhaps you'd like a lab test results page where our non-GMO lettuce generally held higher nutrient quality versus the Guideline GMO of the same variety when grown under the same conditions? Yea let's post that one first


Your nutrient analysis only focuses on elements and only some of them.  I see that your lettuce has more Nitrogen, Potassium and Phosphorous.  The only real way to get Nitrogen, Potassium or Phosphorous deficiency is by not eating anything.  Alternatively, chronic alcoholics have issues with phosphorous.  So congrats, you have a form of lettuce that might help chronic alcoholics?

From a purely business standpoint, you might not want to use this example as evidence ever again.
2014-03-18 12:52:55 PM  
1 votes:

draypresct: I'm also certainly not arguing that GMOs are "natural therefore safe" (neither of which is true). I'm arguing that, under the current level of scrutiny, GMOs that pass the testing process are (probably) safer than a number of other agricultural products that are not tested, including some products produced by hybridization, induced mutation, and yes, even artificial selection. Each of these methods are completely unnatural and can produce harmful effects (cyanide grass, anyone?), but we as a society have decided that these risks are generally low enough to live with.


Sure but that focus seems mostly on humans in the short term.  With appropriate testing, I'm perfectly fine with the safety of GMOs.  I'm more worried about the effects on nature in the long term.  Here, in the article, a worm evolved to eat a toxin.  What happens to the organism that eats the worm?  What happens if this gene escapes from the corn population through any number of mechanisms and gets into other plants?

If this had happened naturally, we'd start with a single stalk of corn expressing the toxin to resist the worm.  The corn would slowly grow in numbers, while the worms slowly become resistant, so whatever eats them slowly adapts and so on.  But with GMOs, instead in evolutionary timescales, it's pretty much just "poof" all corn expresses the toxin.  Then "poof" worms become resistant.  Worms can adapt that quickly because they have short lifespans and large numbers of babies.  But as you move up the food chain, eventually you'll hit an organism that can't adapt that quickly and may go extinct.  An alternative possibility is the worms may have become resistant by evolving an enzyme that can metabolize the toxin.  What happens when that metabolite works it way up the food chain to our dinner plates, much like mercury does?

That's the message that needs to get out to these assholes:

But the scientists' own recommendations - an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer's fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges - were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn't even follow those recommendations
2014-03-18 12:27:03 PM  
1 votes:

draypresct: Nothing (except bacterial evolution, dammit) in nature happens at the speed humans can introduce change


Viruses are quicker.  The flu virus mutates quickly enabling it to evade vaccinated immune systems, which is why we have to get another flu shot every year.  HIV mutates even faster, we'd have to get vaccinated daily to keep up with its mutation rate.

draypresct: I'm not advocating relaxing the current standards on GMOs; however, the concept that we should get rid of GMOs (and only GMOs) because of their potential dangers seems to be a plan that would hurt a lot of people just to benefit the finances of Monsanto's business competitors.


I'm not arguing we should get rid of GMOs.  People, yourself here included, seem to be arguing "these things happen naturally, so it's no big deal."  By your definition of natural, everything is natural.  You take a bunch of natural chemicals, put them together using natural processes and poof you get a natural product like Styrofoam.  It's not natural, we are exploiting a natural process for non-natural purposes.  I get it, you want to argue it's natural to take away the scariness.  You and I can go beyond that, I'm not afraid of it -- I have made dozens of GMOs myself.  But there's no way in hell the process or the end result is natural.

Google Alba the GFP bunny.  I can explain to you using only natural processes how it is possible GFP might be transferred from jellyfish to bunnies.  There's no farking way you're going to tell me a GFP bunny is natural.
2014-03-18 11:12:29 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

9/11 was an inside job


crab66:   Next you can tell me about chemtrails and fluoride mind control.

Okay, there's now way concern about GMOs is anywhere near the level of stupidity of calling 9/11 an inside job or fluoride is a method for mind control.

AlanSmithee: As for that fearmongering that OMG GENES ARE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER, whoa, settle down. This happens in nature all the time, and has been happening for millions of years. It's called lateral gene transfer. Usually via bacteria that are really good at inserting genes into their new host's genome. As a matter of fact, a popular technique used in biotech is harnessing those bacteria that naturally do these cross-species (up to even cross-kingdom) to do the oh-so-evil gene transfer.


Yes, it happens all the time but not at the speed which we do it using molecular biology techniques.  And the speed matters.  In lateral gene transfer, conceptually a single plant obtains the gene.  It then grows up and presumably is selected for in the long-term eventually growing to a large population.  Meanwhile, the rest of the ecosystem has time to adapt.  The way humans do it, one day the plant doesn't exist and the next day, poof we have fields full of the stuff.  Your sole focus seems to be on humans in the short term.  This article is about how GMOs effect ecosystems.

I'm all for GMOs, I actually make GMOs myself (for research purposes only) but there are a lot of considerations here.  It's not just no big deal.  We're farking with life and nature, it's kinda a big deal.
2014-03-18 10:49:40 AM  
1 votes:

draypresct: It sounds like you're in favor of organic farming, and that's a fine choice. Just to be clear, my problem with organic farming is when the shills of organic farm corporations completely misrepresent the results of scientific research in order to malign their main business competitors.

Your links indicate that soil degradation and pollusted waterways are problems, but don't specifically link them to GMOs.
Which method do you think pollutes waterways more: organic farming, GMO, or non-organic/non-GMO agriculture?  All three pollute (yes, even organic).

How much of the soil degradation is simply due to scale? I.e. Is there any reason to believe that organic farming would produce less soil degradation when performed on a large enough scale to feed the world?


You're right, pollution and degradation aren't specifically linked to GMOs and are matters of scale.  By definition, organic farming should pollute less, because it requires less (or no) fertilizers and fewer pesticides.  There could still be water pollution from runoff if animals were kept too near waterways.

Organic farming is based on the idea of building the soil, not tearing it down, so soil degradation should be minimized in comparison.  Composting, crop rotation, and green manure (using cover crops that rebuild the soil and protect from erosion in the winter) are just a few of the ways it does this.  Feasible large scale?  Probably not without some major advances, however I'd love to see the government investing in research and subsidies along these lines instead of encouraging big Ag to invent new strains of crops which lead to super insects.  Don't get me wrong, I think certain kinds of genetic modification should be encouraged.  Speeding up the cross breeding process, encouraging natural disease and pest resistance, growth rate and production are all fine ideas, but these should be done in a controlled manner and new varieties should be tested before they become ok'd.
2014-03-18 09:29:39 AM  
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been teste ...


Dude - you NEVER go full retard.
2014-03-18 09:24:58 AM  
1 votes:

Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough

So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?

I never mentioned soybeans. Anybody who knows corn that you don't plant different strains near each other.

So what was your original objection to my non-species specific comment that there's an absurdly low chance that a GM plant has never pollinated a non-GM plant?

As to corn growing - I'm not a farmer but to me it seems unlikely that neighboring farmers who both grow corn would each give up 75 meters around the perimeter of their farm. AFAIK cross-pollination does not affect the crop, just the offspring if you save the seeds. Most farmers don't save seeds, they buy them from suppliers - so would they really care about cross-pollination enough to maintain buffer zones? I'll be happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.


Bees can fly up to 5 miles in their normal routes looking for flowers to pollinate.  I don't think anyone is making barriers that big
2014-03-18 09:16:35 AM  
1 votes:
An excellent, scientific overview of Bt here:
http://web.expasy.org/spotlight/snapshots/014/

"
Bacillus thuringiensis has been used commercially - in the form of dried spores and crystal toxins - in agriculture since the 1930s. Its use increased in the 1980s when it was clear that insects were becoming resistant to synthetic insecticides which were harmful to the environment anyway. Bt is organic and affects only specific insects. With biotechnology flourishing, it was not long before specific Bt endotoxin genes were integrated into plant genomes and genetically modified crops were created: the 'Bt crops' which now include 'Bt corn', 'Bt potato', 'Bt cotton' and 'Bt soybean'.
The advantage here is that farmers do not have to spray crops with Bt and that only the insects which harm the crops are attacked; even those which have a go at the plants' roots. No harm can come to humans or other mammals either, since not only are toxins ineffective in mammalian physiological pH but they do not have receptors for the toxins anyway. "
2014-03-18 08:56:00 AM  
1 votes:

Deathfrogg: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine, polluting ourselves into a nasty weather feedback cycle, while simultaneously telling people that only the people who deserve to be poor are the ones starving and coughing in the streets.

The next 100 years is going to be very interesting.

Read: The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. The story takes place after several generations of that.

All the super rich have done is earn themselves to be the last to starve when things go to shiat. They cause the problems, then blame the people affected by those problems for suffering the effects the problems they created. They would happily murder 2/3 of the human race rather than admit they're farking the world up.


I tried. I got a few chapters in but frankly it was deadly boring and the science of energy storage was so hilariously wrong I couldn't get into it. When the entire premise hinges in basic science that is wrong, and rather stupid, I can't read it. No, I don't care about the justification, we are not going to lose the ability to generate electricity. Even in the book hooking up a damn generator to the 'mainspring winding' mechanics she details would result in electricity generation at useable levels. And they obviously have chemical and mechanical storage methods.

Plus the writing was boring.
2014-03-18 08:52:50 AM  
1 votes:

robohobo: Next 100 years....who the fark cares? Every one of us will be long dead by then. I'm pretty sure the most of fark has a little money and even less pigmentaton.


The idea isn't "after" 100 years, but "for the duration of" 100 years. So, unless we're mourning your passing, you and I and lots of the rest of us are merely at the beginning of the next 100 years.

But I don't think things will be interesting. Grinding poverty isn't interesting.
2014-03-18 08:30:48 AM  
1 votes:

MemeSlave: The worm did not evolve to eat the corn, some of the worms stopped dying when they tried. It's different.


Well.. yes... in the sense that what you apparently imagine evolution to be and what evolution really is are quite different things....
2014-03-18 08:29:01 AM  
1 votes:

Any Pie Left: What I take away from the story is that farmers are greedy and thrifty; the proper management technique, alternating fields of Bt and non-Bt corn, would have reduced their profit per acre by some fraction, while adding some cost for buying more than one kind of seed, and perhaps having to buy and apply some conventional pesticides.  They're mostly cash-renters, not owners, on the land they farm, so they don't have the same tie to the land as a farmer that's had that property in the family for generations. They look at the field as just another kind of factory. And Monsanto lobbied the government to keep the refuge percentage guidelines low and unenforced. So, near-term profit overrides long-term common sense and care.

Yet again.


While I liked your post you read the article...

3.bp.blogspot.com

Burn him!
2014-03-18 08:28:49 AM  
1 votes:

Mid_mo_mad_man: Target Builder: Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.

You know how I know your not a gardener or farmer? Unless they are planting gmo and non gmo next to each they can cross. Corn pollen is spread by wind. It actually has to be fairly close to spread from plants. Twenty feet between strands of it is usally enough


So you are stating, as fact, that no GM-corn has ever been grown within pollinating distance of non-GM corn on neighboring farms? Which going by this article appears to be up to 150 meters

You are also stating, as fact, that no bee has ever visited a GM-soybean plant and then stopped by a non-GM soybean plant on its way back to its hive?
2014-03-18 08:12:29 AM  
1 votes:

MemeSlave: Another pop-sci evolution article.

The worm did not evolve to eat the corn, some of the worms stopped dying when they tried.  It's different.


And those worms bred baby worms that didn't die either.

See? Evolution.
2014-03-18 08:06:39 AM  
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: 1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.


Given that the seeds aren't sterile there's an absurdly low chance that there has never been any cross contamination.
2014-03-18 08:00:14 AM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: Also: creationists can suck it, too.


Also: organic farmers and consumers can suck it, too. These transgenic crops protect themselves from insects by bathing themselves in bt, the organic pesticide that organic farmers have until now been able to use to fight infestations. That was a tool available to all of mankind, and the biotech folks have, apparently, ruined it in a decade and a half. Thanks, FDA.
2014-03-18 07:51:09 AM  
1 votes:

TwistedFark: Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.

You are a moron. I could spend an hour rebutting you and pointing out the flaws in your logic, but alas, I am not a moron and have determined that no one will benefit from the exchange and I have better things to do.


AKA, you've got nothing to add.
2014-03-18 07:49:41 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Farkage: Glad to see you are so complacent on the issue.

I'm not complacent . I just recognize that I'm not a scientist with expertise in this field. My opinion is 100% irrelevant on the subject of the long term effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on the human body.

Farkage: Food genetically engineered to produce more vitamins isn't a concern of mine, just the ones that are done to express things like bt toxin, as nature rapidly evolves so the bugs are resistant to that. That leads to wonderful ideas about making it more toxic to keep ahead, or it doesn't work. Do you even remotely see what I'm getting at?

yes I do see what you're getting at. unfortunately your opinion on a highly complex topic, involving different branches of science that you have no experience in, is irrelevant. You're just another ranting fear monger clouding the issue.

Much like creationists, anti-vaccers, and 9/11 truthers, you seem to thank that just by being alive you opinion holds weight. It doesn't. just like 99% of the population, you knowledge on the topic is nil, and your opinion means jack shiat.


Wow, project much?
2014-03-18 07:46:27 AM  
1 votes:

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.


You are a moron. I could spend an hour rebutting you and pointing out the flaws in your logic, but alas, I am not a moron and have determined that no one will benefit from the exchange and I have better things to do.
2014-03-18 07:35:52 AM  
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination. Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.



Wrong.   Sorry, buddy, gonna have to code you as a GM shill now.  You're deliberately phrasing your response to avoid the OUTFLOW of gmo genes, which has occurred.

Basically, non-GMO farmers already have to consider legal and insurance defenses, since the "all GMO good, all the time" crowd has, unsurprisingly, ass-farked them:

http://www.flaginc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GMOthreats.pdf

Full disclosure:  As an investor, I make money from GMO crops.

Like fracking, though, I just don't see the need to pretend it's all sweetness and light, all the time.

It ain't.
2014-03-18 07:33:12 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Farkage: Go learn how vaccines work and rethink your post mkay? Not remotely the same.

I didn't say, or imply they work the same way.

what I was saying, is that you are using the exact same fear mongering tactics used by anti-vaccers.

Farkage: Now tell me the long term health consequences of ingesting bt toxin. Show your work.
We'll wait.

as I said, anyone is free to test that. no one is forced to take Monsanto's word on their "pinky swear"

now, do you have a peer reviewed study that shows the long term health consequences of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis? Because I never claimed to have that information, but you seem pretty sure of it, so lets have it.


No, I don't and I freely admit that. I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to engineering our food to become more toxic though. Glad to see you are so complacent on the issue.
Food genetically engineered to produce more vitamins isn't a concern of mine, just the ones that are done to express things like bt toxin, as nature rapidly evolves so the bugs are resistant to that. That leads to wonderful ideas about making it more toxic to keep ahead, or it doesn't work. Do you even remotely see what I'm getting at?
2014-03-18 07:28:45 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Farkage: My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.

who exactly is "they"? because you understand that anyone can test they stuff to determine if it is safe or not.

Your comment would be like saying "My issue is engineering vaccines to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep diseases from your body it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay. "


Except that the toxins those GMO plants produce kill as many beneficial insects as harmful ones. Not to mention the fact that engineering plants to produce the same toxins used to clear the forests in Vietnam during the 1960s really doesn't seem like a good idea, considering the health effects that are still being seen more than thirty years after the fact. Children are still being born with massive birth defects, and people are still getting a hundred different types of cancers they weren't getting before the American War there.
2014-03-18 07:19:59 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Farkage: My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.

who exactly is "they"? because you understand that anyone can test they stuff to determine if it is safe or not.

Your comment would be like saying "My issue is engineering vaccines to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep diseases from your body it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay. "


Go learn how vaccines work and rethink your post mkay? Not remotely the same.
Now tell me the long term health consequences of ingesting bt toxin. Show your work.
We'll wait.
2014-03-18 07:08:48 AM  
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been tested to establish that it's healthy/safe.  Non-GM food has not.  You're actually taking  moreof a health risk eating non-GM food.

As for things adapting to our farming techniques... you do realize that pests have been adapting rapidly to our farming techniques for between 12000 and 14000 years, depending how long your region of the world has had agriculture, right?  Historically, we haven't found staying ahead terribly insurmountable as problems go.  If you really think it's a "GM" problem, for christ's sake go take some sort of remedial GED biology class or something.


Wow, you really went full retard there, didn't you? So you're telling me that corn genetically engineered to produce bt toxin is safer and healthier than corn that isn't? Because that was what my point was.

My one and only point.

Yes, things have been evolving as long as life has been around. Anyone with a half a brain knows that. My issue is engineering food to produce more and different kinds of toxin to keep bugs from eating it because it'll kill them, but saying it's okay for us to eat it because they tested it a little and pinky swear that it's okay.
2014-03-18 07:05:38 AM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: contaminate natural strains of crops


Where are these natural strains of crops to contaminate? Do you mean the mutant strains that humans have genetically engineered (via selective breeding) for thousands of years, so for example with wheat it can't naturally spread its seed and has to be manually or machine planted or it would rapidly die out?
2014-03-18 07:04:08 AM  
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.


What? Are you saying that no GMO corn has ever contaminated other corn crops through pollination? Because that is simply not true. It's VERY hard for farmers or seed companies to be able to certify corn as non-GMO these days, because if they are honest about testing their corn, they keep finding that it is contaminated, even when grown in the remote regions of the US.
2014-03-18 06:09:13 AM  
1 votes:
Checkmate, evolution-deniers.
2014-03-18 05:56:08 AM  
1 votes:


img2.wikia.nocookie.net
"Toldja so!"

2014-03-18 05:46:58 AM  
1 votes:
Up your corn hole, Monsanto!
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report